UPDATE Monday: Enom emailed me to advise that only a ‘several’ registrars provided Enom contact data. I went to the list again just now and counted 50 registrars with an Enom number. Enom adds that an entity from New York is responsible for 396 accreditations.
ORIGINAL POST: Open registration for the .EU top level domain name begins on April 7. Accredited registrars were listed here. Approximately 400 registrars give Bellevue Washington (Note Update Above) as their location and provide their telephone number as that of eNom, a registrar in Bellevue. Eyebrows were raised because at 10,000 euros per accreditation, those are hefty fees.
One registrar has circulated a memo (that does not identify eNom) that states:
“. . . our preliminary investigation indicates that this may be an attempt to register valuable brands, generic names and then profit by reselling them back to clients at a high premium or monetize the high traffic names for pay per click revenue.”
Another registrar, Nick Wood of Com Laude said, “This alliance is not doing anything wrong in rushing for attractive names as long as they have genuine end-clients. [However] there is a provision in the agreement that all accredited registrars sign with EURid, the registry operator, that specifically forbids warehousing but does EURid have the appetite to enforce it?”
At first glance, one wonders if the 4 million euro investment could be re-couped if only retail registration is envisioned.
My emails to eNom asking them to comment on this have not been returned as of yet. (Note Update Above).
Technology & Marketing Law Blog: ‘Competitor’s Keyword Ad Purchase May Be Trademark Infringement’ (discussing District of Minnesota case Edina Realty v. TheMSLonline.com).
Dennis Forbes: ‘Interesting Facts About Domain Names.’ HT Scripting News.
In today’s NY Times account of Apple v. Apple, Apple Computer’s attorney states that “‘Even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about” the distinction between the computer company’s iTunes online music business and a recording company like Apple Corps . . .”
The nuance of this statement is lost by the Times for two reasons. First, the term ‘moron in a hurry’ actually appears in UK caselaw. In Morning Star Cooperative Society v Express Newspapers Ltd, 1979, the Court noted that only a moron in a hurry would confuse plaintiffs and defendant’s products.
However, while that is one way of articulating a standard for trademark confusion, it is my understanding that the UK proceeding is a contract case, not a trademark case, where the Court will be asked to interpret a contract, rather than to decide what morons in a hurry think.
Now, in my role as a reasonably prudent person in a hurry, I took a quick look at the 1991 coexistence agreement between Apple Computer and Apple Records, and paragraph 4.3 seems kind of clear and should allow Apple Computer to do what it’s doing. What do you think?
IPFrontline.com: ‘Champagne and Barbie in the Supreme Court of Canada‘
No, just joshin’. But Stoller has written to TTABlog about his recent filing of hundreds of extension requests, putting the arm on perhaps a thousand applicants by now, asking each for thousands of dollars.
You know, if a homeless person had camped out in front of the PTO for four months and hassled each person entering the building for $5, the PTO might have called the cops by now.
This Channelnewsasia.com article reports that WIPO has announced a revised Trademark Law Treaty, to be named the Singapore Treaty, after the location of the recent conference. No announcement on the WIPO site yet. Background here.
How about that?